I feel like this is kind of just arbitrarily picking and choosing again. We do not fully understand how emotional processing happens either, and the mechanics behind it are arguably more complex to the layperson than vision is. There are different types of adrenaline rushes (excitement, fear, athletic focus, etc.) and most people don't know how noradrenaline and other chemicals influence your emotional state, whereas I'd argue that far more people understand the basic mechanics of sight (rods and cones) and when getting blinded by light there is only one potential sensation.

If you want to have fun with the idea of what fictional/fantastical ghosts do or do not experience, that is completely okay, but you don't need to try and make some justification or explanation as to why it is that particular way and not any other way or why that way makes more sense than any others.

In my head, I can also kind of see how it could make sense that if ghosts existed then there'd likely be certain emotional stimuli that they'd be missing, But that's just in my head with my reasoning, doesn't mean that it has to objectively make more sense than anything else or that that's how it would be if they actually existed.